Slam Count if Bo3

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
How different would current slam count be if slams were best of 3? Would this have favored a certain member of Big 3 or evened out?

I think we would have had more upset slam champs overall for sure.

BTW: I am NOT for a switch to Bo3. Just curious.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
How different would current slam count be if slams were best of 3? Would this have favored a certain member of Big 3 or evened out?

I think we would have had more upset slam champs overall for sure.

BTW: I am NOT for a switch to Bo3. Just curious.
I'm already appalled at Masters Finals and the YEC going to BO3! That doesn't always give us the best player; just like today in Japan! :D
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray would have won all of his Slams in straight sets. Tsitsipas would now be the reigning RG champion and Djokovic would still be on 19 Slams.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Agreed, he would have been able to be more competitive in Slams post 2014. The physical toll really limited him.
In reality Slams should always be BO5 and YEC should also be B05 (with proper top 8 fighting rigorous 5 setters from the round robin match till the end to win the title).

Surfaces should be :

AO - Plexi- Medium Slow
FO - Red Clay - Slow
W - Grass - Very Fast ( Semi Finals onwards it should be indoor on Centre Court )
USO - Deco Turf - Medium Fast

WTF - Carpets (indoor)
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Djokovic should have lost 2011 USO,2020 AO and 2021 FO. These are just Finals there could be many if we go below semis.
All the top players have stolen a MAJOR or 3! Why only Nole put under the microscope saying if not for an errant MP or 2, he wouldn't have won those Majors? :unsure:
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Off the top of my head:
Fed wins USO 2009, beats Nole 2010-11,
Loses W 2008 in SS beat down however:(
Loses 2009 FO to Haas?
 

daphne

Hall of Fame
Agreed, he would have been able to be more competitive in Slams post 2014. The physical toll really limited him.
We finally agree on something. You are right. It is safe to conclude that due to his physical limitations he was never a complete player.
 

El_Yotamo

Hall of Fame
If I'm being fully honest, dunno and don't care. Even if it favors my idol (which it doesn't necessarily though who knows) BO5 is the right format for slams and tennis would be worse off without it
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
It's the main reason Fedal have been able to hang on so long; dropping Masters 1000 events to BO3 and seeding 32 players really helped them over the years! :unsure:
Nah, that doesn’t mean much IMO. At Masters it was only the final that was Best of 5 (and not even of every Masters tournament). And of course nobody reaches every final. So why should 2 or 3 matches per year which are an hour longer than normal matches shorten a career?

32 seeds means next to nothing. It only affects the first two rounds, and when does anyone of the Big loses to a player ranked 17-32 in a Slam anyway? Also the chance they draw such a player compared to just a random player ranked 33-128 is only 1/6 each time. Maybe they would lose one first or second round match in their whole career due to hypothetical 16 seeds, if at all.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
I know of at least 5 slams Djokovic would've lost.

In finals: '20 AO Thiem, '21 RG Mussetti & Tsisipas
In SF: '11 USO Federer, '12 AO Murray
In R16: '15 Wim Anderson
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Nah, that doesn’t mean much IMO. At Masters it was only the final that was Best of 5 (and not even of every Masters tournament). And of course nobody reaches every final. So why should 2 or 3 matches per year which are an hour longer than normal matches shorten a career?

32 seeds means next to nothing. It only affects the first two rounds, and when does anyone of the Big loses to a player ranked 17-32 in a Slam anyway? Also the chance they draw such a player compared to just a random player ranked 33-128 is only 1/6 each time. Maybe they would lose one first or second round match in their whole career due to hypothetical 16 seeds, if at all.
But all you have to do is look "back in the day" when the top players had to deal with a 5 setter! It was a very rare occurance the finalists would even survive early rounds in the next event! It became routine for Fedovic to win back to back 1000's like IW & Miami with BO3 finals! Taking those clay events like MC, Madrid, & Rome could only occur with Nadal and BO3! It's extended the careers of all players that the events aren't as grinding! The travel is still there, but the elites are going 1st class all the way with an entourage that would rival Hollywood stars! :D
 

Hamnavoe

Hall of Fame
Djokovic keeps AO and Wimbledon this year under this timeline but gets knocked out of RG by Musetti in the fourth round. Tsitsipas won the first two sets of each of his French Open matches but the dynamic might be a bit different against Nadal in the final.
 

Hamnavoe

Hall of Fame
Djokovic keeps AO and Wimbledon this year under this timeline but gets knocked out of RG by Musetti in the fourth round. Tsitsipas won the first two sets of each of his French Open matches but the dynamic might be a bit different against Nadal in the final.
At AO Nadal would have been into a semi with Medvedev, having won the first two sets vs Tsitsipas, which might have been an interesting match-up. Perhaps he could have provided a stiffer challenge for Novak in the final.

Djokovic would also have likely been in a semi-final vs Auger Aliassime, who lost from 2-0 up vs Karatsev in the fourth round and would have faced a physically impaired Dimitrov in the next round (unless Kyrgios was able to knock out Grigor in round four, having beaten Thiem 2-0 in R3).
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
But all you have to do is look "back in the day" when the top players had to deal with a 5 setter! It was a very rare occurance the finalists would even survive early rounds in the next event! It became routine for Fedovic to win back to back 1000's like IW & Miami with BO3 finals! Taking those clay events like MC, Madrid, & Rome could only occur with Nadal and BO3! It's extended the careers of all players that the events aren't as grinding! The travel is still there, but the elites are going 1st class all the way with an entourage that would rival Hollywood stars! :D
I’m sure it’s just because the Big 3 are great players. Indian Wells and Miami were 1.5 weeks tournaments with 1st round byes anyway, so the first match after the Sunday final in Indian Wells was on next Friday or Saturday.

And Nadal would have won even more clay Masters in Best of 5, because he wouldn’t lose some of those finals to Djokovic then. He lost ONE tournament due to a Best of 5 final with Hamburg 2006 where he skipped after that Rome final.
 

Raz11

Semi-Pro
I know of at least 5 slams Djokovic would've lost.

In finals: '20 AO Thiem, '21 RG Mussetti & Tsisipas
In SF: '11 USO Federer, '12 AO Murray
In R16: '15 Wim Anderson
+ '14 Wim Cilic

Federer
'09 US Delpo
'09 RG Hass Delop
'12 Wim Benneteau

Nadal
'10 Wim Haase Petzschner
'11 RG Isner

Fed may have picked up 14,15 Wim, 05 AO and 11 RG
Nadal may have picked up 11 USO, 21 RG, 12 AO
Djokovic may have picked up 12 Wim though i think Murray would be won this.

Fed 19-23
Nadal 18-21
Djokovic 14-15
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Probably not very different. At their peak, when the Big3/Big4 cared about all tournaments, they dominated Bo3 as much or even more than Bo5. The recent losses in Bo3 reflect different priorities
 
Top